GNW, by your logic, no Hispanic female could ever achieve anything by merit alone
and she was not an “affirmative action” baby at Yale, she graduated summa kum laude from Princeton. She’s acknowledged affirmative action played a role in her entry to Princeton, not to yale. She was an editor of the Yale Law School Journal.
She worked as a prosecuting attorney for five years.
Bush 41 nominated her to N.Y. district court in 91. Clinton nominated her to the appeals court in 97. She has also taught law at New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School.
I believe she’s more than “earned” this nomination, about 100 times more than Thomas earned his nomination.
BCS: She herself said she was “an affirmative action baby” at both Princeton and Yale.
My logic simply says eliminate affirmative action and the question of merit achievement will never arise. Ginsburg and O’Connor both got their jobs on merit. You can’t have it both ways. Did she make a fine student at Princeton and Yale? Absolutely, but the one passed over would probably have been better.
Please be careful of your facts: in NYS the 2 parties had a deal. If the President was a Democrat the Democratic Senator got to pick 3/4 judges. If the President was a Republican visa versa. Democrat Moynihan picked Sotomayor and Bush 41 had to go along. She was a Democratic affirmative action choice all the way.
GNW, no, I don’t see it as you see it, nor can I follow your logic.
Since Sotomayor graduated kum laude from Princeton, going to Yale was not affirmative action. She was admitted to yale based on her academic performance.
And it is just a fact that Bush 41 appointed her initially. If you want to start adding footnoted deals for every judicial appointment, you have to do it consistently, or, as you say, you can’t have it both ways.
If I understand your logic, if an 18 year old is admitted to an exclusive Ivy League school as a freshman partly as a result of affirmative action, everything he or she does after that is solely based on affirmative action? I disagree. She’s extremely qualified.
GNW, you don’t get summa status through affirmative action. You don’t get to be editor of the Yale Law Review through affirmative action. The ONLY way to get that is to earn it.
This in fact justifies affirmative action. People who might not have gotten in because they did not score on the right tests prove in practice to be eminently qualified and to perform comparably to those who got in the usual way. The point of affirmative action is not to give an unfair advantage, it is to make up for an unfair DISadvantage. But once they’re in the school, they’re on their own. No one holds your hand after that.
Seems to me performance is the real measure, and by that standard (certainly her academic performance) she is exceptional.
If need be, I can cite some research around this, since my professional expertise is on leadership assessment. But I can certainly say this: your score on SATs correlates only with your grades in the first year of college. Nothing else - not real-world performance, not job success, not final results at the end of college education. And it is known that IQ tests (and their cousin, the SAT) consistently score lower for those from other cultures or races. Some people are foolish enough to insist that this is due to genetic differences. Some of us know a bit more about test design.
BCS: Are you saying that everyone who graduates with honors at one of the prestigious schools gets into Yale? That is simply not true. Hundreds of rejected applicants have honors and other special qualities.
I know as a fact that at Stanford undergraduate they accepted 1700 students (my daughters class). They had over 2000 applications with SATs over 1500, #1 in high school graduating class and extra-curriculars en masse. That didn’t count oboe players, jocks, and affirmative action. When you do the math more highly qualified get rejected than get accepted.
She said she was accepted at Yale as an affirmative action candidate. Why does that surprise you?
The deal in NYC was unusual and I would be glad to record every single instance when a President appoints a judge from the other party as part of a deal.
My favorite judge in the entire US, Janice Rogers Brown, only got confirmed as part of a deal with the 14 (remember?) so there would be no filibuster.
BTW, I read law professor blogs and there obviously has been much comment on the hearings. There has been much surprise at some of her comments. This is not a matter of having different judicial philosophies, they don’t go there. The surprise is her incorrect replies from lack of knowledge of the actual law and previous judicial rulings.
As I have said from day 1. She will be confirmed and will be an adequate not brilliant justice. Some of the comments have been made by recognized constitutional experts who have been invited to testify as expert witnesses.
The surprise is her incorrect replies from lack of knowledge of the actual law and previous judicial rulings.
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I work with one. But your statement above surprises me. I did not hear any of the Faux news legal analysts make that comment, and if she was incorrect as you say, I’m sure they would have been chomping on the bit to point it out.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Not really. Most sensible Republicans have admitted she’ll pass. She’s got credentials to burn, unlike at least one current justice.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
Sotomayor- “affirmative action baby” (her quote)- Princeton
“affirmative action baby” Yale law school
appointed a judge because she was Hispanic and a woman
named an appellate court judge because she was Hispanic and a woman
nominated to supreme court because she was Hispanic and a woman
Yep, credentials to burn.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, by your logic, no Hispanic female could ever achieve anything by merit alone
and she was not an “affirmative action” baby at Yale, she graduated summa kum laude from Princeton. She’s acknowledged affirmative action played a role in her entry to Princeton, not to yale. She was an editor of the Yale Law School Journal.
She worked as a prosecuting attorney for five years.
Bush 41 nominated her to N.Y. district court in 91. Clinton nominated her to the appeals court in 97. She has also taught law at New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School.
I believe she’s more than “earned” this nomination, about 100 times more than Thomas earned his nomination.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
BCS: She herself said she was “an affirmative action baby” at both Princeton and Yale.
My logic simply says eliminate affirmative action and the question of merit achievement will never arise. Ginsburg and O’Connor both got their jobs on merit. You can’t have it both ways. Did she make a fine student at Princeton and Yale? Absolutely, but the one passed over would probably have been better.
Please be careful of your facts: in NYS the 2 parties had a deal. If the President was a Democrat the Democratic Senator got to pick 3/4 judges. If the President was a Republican visa versa. Democrat Moynihan picked Sotomayor and Bush 41 had to go along. She was a Democratic affirmative action choice all the way.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, no, I don’t see it as you see it, nor can I follow your logic.
Since Sotomayor graduated kum laude from Princeton, going to Yale was not affirmative action. She was admitted to yale based on her academic performance.
And it is just a fact that Bush 41 appointed her initially. If you want to start adding footnoted deals for every judicial appointment, you have to do it consistently, or, as you say, you can’t have it both ways.
If I understand your logic, if an 18 year old is admitted to an exclusive Ivy League school as a freshman partly as a result of affirmative action, everything he or she does after that is solely based on affirmative action? I disagree. She’s extremely qualified.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
GNW, you don’t get summa status through affirmative action. You don’t get to be editor of the Yale Law Review through affirmative action. The ONLY way to get that is to earn it. This in fact justifies affirmative action. People who might not have gotten in because they did not score on the right tests prove in practice to be eminently qualified and to perform comparably to those who got in the usual way. The point of affirmative action is not to give an unfair advantage, it is to make up for an unfair DISadvantage. But once they’re in the school, they’re on their own. No one holds your hand after that. Seems to me performance is the real measure, and by that standard (certainly her academic performance) she is exceptional. If need be, I can cite some research around this, since my professional expertise is on leadership assessment. But I can certainly say this: your score on SATs correlates only with your grades in the first year of college. Nothing else - not real-world performance, not job success, not final results at the end of college education. And it is known that IQ tests (and their cousin, the SAT) consistently score lower for those from other cultures or races. Some people are foolish enough to insist that this is due to genetic differences. Some of us know a bit more about test design.
Motivemagus almost 15 years ago
Oh, yeah, and I’ve got two Ivy League degrees myself, so I know a bit about how they work from the inside. Didn’t get summa myself.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
BCS: Are you saying that everyone who graduates with honors at one of the prestigious schools gets into Yale? That is simply not true. Hundreds of rejected applicants have honors and other special qualities.
I know as a fact that at Stanford undergraduate they accepted 1700 students (my daughters class). They had over 2000 applications with SATs over 1500, #1 in high school graduating class and extra-curriculars en masse. That didn’t count oboe players, jocks, and affirmative action. When you do the math more highly qualified get rejected than get accepted.
She said she was accepted at Yale as an affirmative action candidate. Why does that surprise you?
The deal in NYC was unusual and I would be glad to record every single instance when a President appoints a judge from the other party as part of a deal.
My favorite judge in the entire US, Janice Rogers Brown, only got confirmed as part of a deal with the 14 (remember?) so there would be no filibuster.
BTW, I read law professor blogs and there obviously has been much comment on the hearings. There has been much surprise at some of her comments. This is not a matter of having different judicial philosophies, they don’t go there. The surprise is her incorrect replies from lack of knowledge of the actual law and previous judicial rulings.
As I have said from day 1. She will be confirmed and will be an adequate not brilliant justice. Some of the comments have been made by recognized constitutional experts who have been invited to testify as expert witnesses.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, thanks for the response.
The surprise is her incorrect replies from lack of knowledge of the actual law and previous judicial rulings.
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I work with one. But your statement above surprises me. I did not hear any of the Faux news legal analysts make that comment, and if she was incorrect as you say, I’m sure they would have been chomping on the bit to point it out.